Continuing on from my previous post on the Trinity in the Old Testament, I will now discuss the use of the plural "we" in Genesis 1:26.  This verse has interested scholars and theologians for centuries; how it is both translated and interpreted could have a significant impact on one's theology.

To set the stage, I will first remind the reader of the familiar creation account from Genesis 1. God created the earth and it was without form, dark, and void. The choice of language here paints a picture of chaos, but also of potential; for the Spirit of God was hovering over the water, pregnant with power, ready to create, form and organize. First God created light and separated it from the darkness.  Next, He created and separated the sky, the sea and the land, providing realms for His future creatures to dwell, and then vegetation and fruit to sustain them.  Moving on, He provided function for the sun and the moon in the sky: that they may provide signs for the seasons, the days and the years, as well as provide light.  During God's fifth and sixth day, He filled the earth with animals-- birds of the sky, fish of the sea, swarms of insects, and beasts to inhabit the land.  This is where we find ourselves upon approaching Genesis 1:26. God has created and shaped the earth, the sea, the sky, the luminaries, the flora and the fauna; but He is not through yet, for the capstone of His creation is still forthcoming: man.  Consider Genesis 1:26-27 in this context, using the following three translations.

Since the first two parts of the Plantinga Pwns series were pretty intense philosophically and covered quite a lot of ground, and given that the next topic in the series is the problem of evil - which also promises to be pretty intense - I decided to write this post as a bit of a breather.  Here I'll cover the basics of philosophy "versus" science.  (If you'd like to read up on the subject in more depth, check out Part IV of this book by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, the philosophy of science wikipedia page, and - if you're feeling ambitious - Part II of Popper Selections)

This is the development of a thought experiment that I took part in coming up with on a fourm a while back. Consider the following three hypothetical situations:

In my last post, we ended with Plantinga's rather disappointing conclusion that the arguments for the existence of God are not compelling.  In the quest to determine whether belief in God is rational, he moves on to some of the arguments against the existence of God.  It should come as no surprise that the main argument discussed is the Problem of Evil. Arguments of Natural Atheology

For most atheologians of the time, the force of the problem of evil is that it shows a logical inconsistency in the core tenants of theism.  They take the following five propositions as being essential to theism:

a. God exists
b. God is omnipotent (all-powerful)
c. God is omniscient (all-knowing)
d. God is wholly good
e. Evil exists

Here we already run into a snag.  These five propositions do not entail a formal contradiction.  This may not be readily apparent to you, and it almost certainly isn't to an atheist with whom you might be debating.  Nonetheless, the point remains.  H. J. McCloskey apparently did not realize this; however, J. L. Mackie - one of the most brilliant atheist philosophers of the 20th century - did .  He realized that in order to arrive at a formal contradiction, at least one other proposition must be added.

Next Post Newer Posts Previous Post Older Posts Home